WAY v. BURCH et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
CURTIS ANTONIO WAY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-117-TKW/MJF
S. BURCH and ERIK D. HOWARD,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this § 1983 action, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of
limitations. The District Court, therefore, should dismiss this civil action.
B ACKGROUND
A. 	Plaintiff Initiates this Civil Action
Plaintiff 	is 	a 	prisoner 	incarcerated 	at 	the 	Union 	Correctional
Institution in Raiford, Florida. Doc. 7 at 2. On February 27, 2026,
Plaintiff initiated this civil action. Doc. 1 at 1.
B. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Amend the Complaint
Pursuant to this court’s screening obligation under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the undersigned reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint. The undersigned
informed Plaintiff that his claims likely are barred by the statute of
limitations. Doc. 4.
Case 4:26-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
C. 	Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 7.
Plaintiff names as Defendants two correctional officers at the
Franklin Correctional Institution, where Plaintiff was formerly housed.
Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff alleges that, in 2021, Defendants deprived Plaintiff
of his personal property. Id. at 5–6; Doc. 7-1 at 3.
Plaintiff asserts claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. 7 at 9. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. Id. at 11.
D ISCUSSION
The 	District 	Court 	should 	dismiss 	this 	civil 	action 	because
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
A. 	The Statute of Limitations
The District Court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint, and
dismiss it if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “A district court
may properly dismiss a § 1983 complaint sua sponte, without requiring
any responsive pleadings, for failure to state a claim if the action would
be barred by the state’s statute of limitations.” Simpson v. Florida, 708
Case 4:26-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
F. App’x 635, 636 (11th Cir. 2018). Dismissal is proper where it is
“apparent on the face of the complaint” that a plaintiff’s claims are barred
by the statute of limitations. Isaiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 960 F.3d
1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2020).
In § 1983 suits, district courts should apply the most appropriate or
analogous state statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). In Florida,
claims 	brought 	under 	§ 	1983 	are 	subject 	to 	a 	four-year 	statute 	of
limitations. Ellison v. Lester, 275 F. App’x 900, 901–02 (11th Cir. 2008);
Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Fla.
Stat. §95.11(5)(g). That is, a plaintiff must initiate a § 1983 action within
four years of the date “the facts which would support a cause of action
are apparent or should be apparent to a person with reasonably prudent
regard for his rights.” Van Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F.3d 865, 867 (11th
Cir. 2011) (quoting McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir.
2008)). Section 1983 claims, therefore, accrue when a plaintiff knows or
has reason to know that he has been injured, and is aware or should have
been aware who inflicted the injury. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388
(2007).
B. 	Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred by the Statute of Limitations
In 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint—filed 	after 	the 	undersigned
Case 4:26-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
informed Plaintiff that his claims likely are barred by the statute of
limitations—Plaintiff 	omits 	the 	date 	of 	the 	alleged 	constitutional
violations. But in Plaintiff’s initial complaint, he clearly stated that the
Defendants’ actions occurred on May 25, 2021. Doc. 1 at 5.
Furthermore, 	Plaintiff 	attached 	to 	his 	amended 	complaint
grievances that purportedly support his claims. Doc. 7 at 8. Those
grievances are considered “part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R.
Civ. 	P. 	10(c). 	In 	those 	grievances, 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	the 	event
supporting his claims occurred on May 25, 2021. Doc. 7-1 at 3.
Assuming 	that 	Plaintiff 	truly 	suffered 	a 	constitutional 	injury,
Plaintiff knew or should have known by May 25, 2021 that he had
suffered such an injury and that Defendants were responsible.
Based on Florida’s four-year statute of limitations, Plaintiff had
until 	May 	25, 	2025, 	to 	commence 	a 	§ 	1983 	civil 	action 	based 	on
Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff commenced this civil action on February
27, 2026, more than nine months after the statute of limitations expired.
Because it is obvious from Plaintiff’s amended complaint that his
claims are barred by the statute of limitations, the District Court should
dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Case 4:26-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 06/09/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 9th day of June 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to address dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). 	Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections
on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the
magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:26-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 06/09/26 Page 5 of 5